fix(doctest): detect extern crate items in statement doctests
This partially reverts #91026, because rustdoc needs to detect the extern statements, even when they appear inside implicit `main()`. It does not entirely revert it, so the old bug is still fixed, by duplicating some of the logic from `parse_mod` instead of trying to use it directly.
Fixes#91134
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #90856 (Suggestion to wrap inner types using 'allocator_api' in tuple)
- #91103 (Inhibit clicks on summary's children)
- #91137 (Give people a single link they can click in the contributing guide)
- #91140 (Split inline const to two feature gates and mark expression position inline const complete)
- #91148 (Use `derive_default_enum` in the compiler)
- #91153 (kernel_copy: avoid panic on unexpected OS error)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Split inline const to two feature gates and mark expression position inline const complete
This PR splits inline const in pattern position into its own `#![feature(inline_const_pat)]` feature gate, and make the usage in expression position complete.
I think I have resolved most outstanding issues related to `inline_const` with #89561 and other PRs. The only thing left that I am aware of is #90150 and the lack of lifetime checks when inline const is used in pattern position (FIXME in #89561). Implementation-wise when used in pattern position it has to be lowered during MIR building while in expression position it's evaluated only when monomorphizing (just like normal consts), so it makes some sense to separate it into two feature gates so one can progress without being blocked by another.
``@rustbot`` label: T-compiler F-inline_const
Suggestion to wrap inner types using 'allocator_api' in tuple
This PR provides a suggestion to wrap the inner types in tuple when being along with 'allocator_api'.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/83250
```rust
fn main() {
let _vec: Vec<u8, _> = vec![]; //~ ERROR use of unstable library feature 'allocator_api'
}
```
```diff
error[E0658]: use of unstable library feature 'allocator_api'
--> $DIR/suggest-vec-allocator-api.rs:2:23
|
LL | let _vec: Vec<u8, _> = vec![];
- | ^
+ | ----^
+ | |
+ | help: consider wrapping the inner types in tuple: `(u8, _)`
|
= note: see issue #32838 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/32838> for more information
= help: add `#![feature(allocator_api)]` to the crate attributes to enable
```
Mark places as initialized when mutably borrowed
Fixes the example in #90752, but does not handle some corner cases involving raw pointers and unsafe. See [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90752#issuecomment-965822895) for more information, or the second test.
Although I talked about both `MaybeUninitializedPlaces` and `MaybeInitializedPlaces` in #90752, this PR only changes the latter. That's because "maybe uninitialized" is the conservative choice, and marking them as definitely initialized (`!maybe_uninitialized`) when a mutable borrow is created could lead to problems if `addr_of_mut` to an uninitialized local is allowed. Additionally, places cannot become uninitialized via a mutable reference, so if a place is definitely initialized, taking a mutable reference to it should not change that.
I think it's correct to ignore interior mutability as nbdd0121 suggests below. Their analysis doesn't work inside of `core::cell`, which *does* have access to `UnsafeCell`'s field, but that won't be an issue unless we explicitly instantiate one with an `enum` within that module.
r? `@wesleywiser`
Avoid generating empty closures for fieldless enum variants
For many enums, this avoids generating lots of tiny stubs that need to be codegen'd and then inlined and removed by LLVM. perf shows this to be a fairly small, but significant, win on rustc bootstrap time -- with minimal impact on runtime performance (which is at times even positive).
Manually outline error on incremental_verify_ich
This reduces codegen for rustc_query_impl by 169k lines of LLVM IR, representing
a 1.2% improvement. This code should be fairly cold, so hopefully this has minimal
performance impact.
This partially reverts #91026, because rustdoc needs to detect the extern statements,
even when they appear inside implicit `main()`. It does not entirely revert it,
so the old bug is still fixed, by duplicating some of the logic from `parse_mod`
instead of trying to use it directly.
Fixes#91134
LLVM has built-in heuristics for adding stack canaries to functions. These
heuristics can be selected with LLVM function attributes. This patch adds a
rustc option `-Z stack-protector={none,basic,strong,all}` which controls the use
of these attributes. This gives rustc the same stack smash protection support as
clang offers through options `-fno-stack-protector`, `-fstack-protector`,
`-fstack-protector-strong`, and `-fstack-protector-all`. The protection this can
offer is demonstrated in test/ui/abi/stack-protector.rs. This fills a gap in the
current list of rustc exploit
mitigations (https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustc/exploit-mitigations.html),
originally discussed in #15179.
Stack smash protection adds runtime overhead and is therefore still off by
default, but now users have the option to trade performance for security as they
see fit. An example use case is adding Rust code in an existing C/C++ code base
compiled with stack smash protection. Without the ability to add stack smash
protection to the Rust code, the code base artifacts could be exploitable in
ways not possible if the code base remained pure C/C++.
Stack smash protection support is present in LLVM for almost all the current
tier 1/tier 2 targets: see
test/assembly/stack-protector/stack-protector-target-support.rs. The one
exception is nvptx64-nvidia-cuda. This patch follows clang's example, and adds a
warning message printed if stack smash protection is used with this target (see
test/ui/stack-protector/warn-stack-protector-unsupported.rs). Support for tier 3
targets has not been checked.
Since the heuristics are applied at the LLVM level, the heuristics are expected
to add stack smash protection to a fraction of functions comparable to C/C++.
Some experiments demonstrating how Rust code is affected by the different
heuristics can be found in
test/assembly/stack-protector/stack-protector-heuristics-effect.rs. There is
potential for better heuristics using Rust-specific safety information. For
example it might be reasonable to skip stack smash protection in functions which
transitively only use safe Rust code, or which uses only a subset of functions
the user declares safe (such as anything under `std.*`). Such alternative
heuristics could be added at a later point.
LLVM also offers a "safestack" sanitizer as an alternative way to guard against
stack smashing (see #26612). This could possibly also be included as a
stack-protection heuristic. An alternative is to add it as a sanitizer (#39699).
This is what clang does: safestack is exposed with option
`-fsanitize=safe-stack`.
The options are only supported by the LLVM backend, but as with other codegen
options it is visible in the main codegen option help menu. The heuristic names
"basic", "strong", and "all" are hopefully sufficiently generic to be usable in
other backends as well.
Reviewed-by: Nikita Popov <nikic@php.net>
Extra commits during review:
- [address-review] make the stack-protector option unstable
- [address-review] reduce detail level of stack-protector option help text
- [address-review] correct grammar in comment
- [address-review] use compiler flag to avoid merging functions in test
- [address-review] specify min LLVM version in fortanix stack-protector test
Only for Fortanix test, since this target specifically requests the
`--x86-experimental-lvi-inline-asm-hardening` flag.
- [address-review] specify required LLVM components in stack-protector tests
- move stack protector option enum closer to other similar option enums
- rustc_interface/tests: sort debug option list in tracking hash test
- add an explicit `none` stack-protector option
Revert "set LLVM requirements for all stack protector support test revisions"
This reverts commit a49b74f92a4e7d701d6f6cf63d207a8aff2e0f68.
Check for duplicate attributes.
This adds some checks for duplicate attributes. In many cases, the duplicates were being ignored without error or warning. This adds several kinds of checks (see `AttributeDuplicates` enum).
The motivation here is to issue unused warnings with similar reasoning for any unused lint, and to error for cases where there are conflicts.
This also adds a check for empty attribute lists in a few attributes where this causes the attribute to be ignored.
Closes#55112.
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #91008 (Adds IEEE 754-2019 minimun and maximum functions for f32/f64)
- #91070 (Make `LLVMRustGetOrInsertGlobal` always return a `GlobalVariable`)
- #91097 (Add spaces in opaque `impl Trait` with more than one trait)
- #91098 (Don't suggest certain fixups (`.field`, `.await`, etc) when reporting errors while matching on arrays )
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Don't suggest certain fixups (`.field`, `.await`, etc) when reporting errors while matching on arrays
When we have a type mismatch with a `cause.code` that is an `ObligationCauseCode::Pattern`, skip suggesting fixes like adding `.await` or accessing a struct's `.field` if the pattern's `root_ty` differs from the `expected` ty. This occurs in situations like this:
```rust
struct S(());
fn main() {
let array = [S(())];
match array {
[()] => {}
_ => {}
}
}
```
I think what's happening here is a layer of `[_; N]` is peeled off of both types and we end up seeing the mismatch between just `S` and `()`, but when we suggest a fixup, that applies to the expression with type `root_ty`.
---
Questions:
1. Should this check live here, above all of the suggestions, or should I push this down into every suggestion when we match `ObligationCauseCode`?
2. Any other `ObligationCauseCode`s to check here?
3. Am I overlooking an easier way to get to this same conclusion without pattern matching on `ObligationCauseCode` and comparing `root_ty`?
Fixes#91058
Make `LLVMRustGetOrInsertGlobal` always return a `GlobalVariable`
`Module::getOrInsertGlobal` returns a `Constant*`, which is a super
class of `GlobalVariable`, but if the given type doesn't match an
existing declaration, it returns a bitcast of that global instead.
This causes UB when we pass that to `LLVMGetVisibility` which
unconditionally casts the opaque argument to a `GlobalValue*`.
Instead, we can do our own get-or-insert without worrying whether
existing types match exactly. It's not relevant when we're just trying
to get/set the linkage and visibility, and if types are needed we can
bitcast or error nicely from `rustc_codegen_llvm` instead.
Fixes#91050, fixes#87933, fixes#87813.
Point at source of trait bound obligations in more places
Be more thorough in using `ItemObligation` and `BindingObligation` when
evaluating obligations so that we can point at trait bounds that
introduced unfulfilled obligations. We no longer incorrectly point at
unrelated trait bounds (`substs-ppaux.verbose.stderr`).
In particular, we now point at trait bounds on method calls.
We no longer point at "obvious" obligation sources (we no longer have a
note pointing at `Trait` saying "required by a bound in `Trait`", like
in `associated-types-no-suitable-supertrait*`).
We no longer point at associated items (`ImplObligation`), as they didn't
add any user actionable information, they just added noise.
Address part of #89418.
Suggest `await` in more situations where infer types are involved
Currently we use `TyS::same_type` in diagnostics that suggest adding `.await` to opaque future types.
This change makes the suggestion slightly more general, when we're comparing types like `Result<T, E>` and `Result<_, _>` which happens sometimes in places like `match` patterns or `let` statements with partially-elaborated types.
----
Question:
1. Is this change worthwhile? Totally fine if it doesn't make sense adding.
2. Should `same_type_modulo_infer` live in `rustc_infer::infer::error_reporting` or alongside the other method in `rustc_middle::ty::util`?
3. Should we generalize this change? I wanted to change all usages, but I don't want erroneous suggestions when adding `.field_name`...
Be more thorough in using `ItemObligation` and `BindingObligation` when
evaluating obligations so that we can point at trait bounds that
introduced unfulfilled obligations. We no longer incorrectly point at
unrelated trait bounds (`substs-ppaux.verbose.stderr`).
In particular, we now point at trait bounds on method calls.
We no longer point at "obvious" obligation sources (we no longer have a
note pointing at `Trait` saying "required by a bound in `Trait`", like
in `associated-types-no-suitable-supertrait*`).
Address part of #89418.
Elaborate `Future::Output` when printing opaque `impl Future` type
I would love to see the `Output =` type when printing type errors involving opaque `impl Future`.
[Test code](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=a800b481edd31575fbcaf5771a9c3678)
Before (cut relevant part of output):
```
note: while checking the return type of the `async fn`
--> /home/michael/test.rs:5:19
|
5 | async fn bar() -> usize {
| ^^^^^ checked the `Output` of this `async fn`, found opaque type
= note: expected type `usize`
found opaque type `impl Future`
```
After:
```
note: while checking the return type of the `async fn`
--> /home/michael/test.rs:5:19
|
5 | async fn bar() -> usize {
| ^^^^^ checked the `Output` of this `async fn`, found opaque type
= note: expected type `usize`
found opaque type `impl Future<Output = usize>`
```
Note the "found opaque type `impl Future<Output = usize>`" in the new output.
----
Questions:
1. We skip printing the output type when it's a projection, since I have been seeing some types like `impl Future<Output = <[static generator@/home/michael/test.rs:2:11: 2:21] as Generator<ResumeTy>>::Return>` which are not particularly helpful and leak implementation detail.
* Am I able to normalize this type within `rustc_middle::ty::print::pretty`? Alternatively, can we normalize it when creating the diagnostic? Otherwise, I'm fine with skipping it and falling back to the old output.
* Should I suppress any other types? I didn't encounter anything other than this generator projection type.
2. Not sure what the formatting of this should be. Do I include spaces in `Output = `?
Fix `non-constant value` ICE (#90878)
This also fixes the same suggestion, which was kind of broken, because it just searched for the last occurence of `const` to replace with a `let`. This works great in some cases, but when there is no const and a leading space to the file, it doesn't work and panic with overflow because it thought that it had found a const.
I also changed the suggestion to only trigger if the `const` and the non-constant value are on the same line, because if they aren't, the suggestion is very likely to be wrong.
Also don't trigger the suggestion if the found `const` is on line 0, because that triggers the ICE.
Asking Esteban to review since he was the last one to change the relevant code.
r? ``@estebank``
Fixes#90878
Clarify error messages caused by re-exporting `pub(crate)` visibility to outside
This PR clarifies error messages and suggestions caused by re-exporting pub(crate) visibility outside the crate.
Here is a small example ([Rust Playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=e2cd0bd4422d4f20e6522dcbad167d3b)):
```rust
mod m {
pub(crate) enum E {}
}
pub use m::E;
fn main() {}
```
This code is compiled to:
```
error[E0365]: `E` is private, and cannot be re-exported
--> prog.rs:4:9
|
4 | pub use m::E;
| ^^^^ re-export of private `E`
|
= note: consider declaring type or module `E` with `pub`
error: aborting due to previous error
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0365`.
```
However, enum `E` is actually public to the crate, not private totally—nevertheless, rustc treats `pub(crate)` and private visibility as the same on the error messages. They are not clear and should be segmented distinctly.
By applying changes in this PR, the error message below will be the following message that would be clearer:
```
error[E0365]: `E` is only public to inside of the crate, and cannot be re-exported outside
--> prog.rs:4:9
|
4 | pub use m::E;
| ^^^^ re-export of crate public `E`
|
= note: consider declaring type or module `E` with `pub`
error: aborting due to previous error
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0365`.
```
Implement `clone_from` for `State`
Data flow engine uses `clone_from` for domain values. Providing an
implementation of `clone_from` will avoid some intermediate memory
allocations.
Extracted from #90413.
r? `@oli-obk`
